Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Squirrel

Should hate speach and hate crimes exist

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Squirrel

 What are your opinions on hate speach and crimes? I accept anyone even blm has a right to say what they want. Guess what the democrats have a right to say what they want. That includes the kkk or who ever. Mouth noise is not a crime. But you incite a riot, you cause people to commit murder. Then that’s a crime. As far as I’m concerned you can yell fire in the crowded theater. That’s your right one person dies because of panick your guilty of murder. Blm can lead their protest chants of death to pigs, kill whitey what ever. One persons injured charge them, one person dies charge them. A crimes a crime. Speech is a right. As far as hate crimes I’ve never heard of a loving beating or murder. We all ready have laws against that. Much like the hate speech laws the hate crime laws just seem to be one sided. 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

the problem with freedom of speech in this country is that there is no such thing anymore.

usage of certain words by only certain people negates any premise the free speech exists.

further, the double standard is applied far too often to allow for a free exchange of ideas that is what a dialogue is all about.

the decision to make violence into a form of communication tells you what those people are after and unless we're prepared to meet have that conversation in full it's a waste of time.

and the violence will continue until reasonable people put a stop to it.

just my spare :2cents:

  • Best Post (+1) 2
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

Of course not, there are already plenty of laws out there, for harassment and the such, these idiot laws just double penalize one race. They are just a form of denying equal protection under the law.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magic Rat

censored no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel

I fully believe these are made up crimes. I just want to see if one left member can address or justify why they exist. It will most likely be avoided by them. But hey to stir it up are they all just gay, homosexual <censored>s? Do I believe that? No I think they are offensive words but I have a right to say them. I wouldn’t except to prove a point. Did that just hurt anyone? Are they words new to anyone? Did it just cause violence and hate? Are they words they don’t use them selves? Let’s just try <censored>,, let me check a couple rap songs....oh yeah that ones in there,, let’s check some left culture and rap songs for the others,,,, yep in there. So is it hate speach and a crime or selective hate speach.  Emphasizing I don’t normally use these words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
1 hour ago, Squirrel said:

 What are your opinions on hate speach and crimes? I accept anyone even blm has a right to say what they want. Guess what the democrats have a right to say what they want. That includes the kkk or who ever. Mouth noise is not a crime. But you incite a riot, you cause people to commit murder. Then that’s a crime. As far as I’m concerned you can yell fire in the crowded theater. That’s your right one person dies because of panick your guilty of murder. Blm can lead their protest chants of death to pigs, kill whitey what ever. One persons injured charge them, one person dies charge them. A crimes a crime. Speech is a right. As far as hate crimes I’ve never heard of a loving beating or murder. We all ready have laws against that. Much like the hate speech laws the hate crime laws just seem to be one sided. 

I have two different opinions, because I believe it's two different topics.

Hate CRIME? Totally against the concept. I mean, aside from the SOLE exception of something like assisted suicide, who the hell ever committed a crime because they loved someone?

Hate SPEECH? In cases where it's an actual "incitement" with a direct establishing link between the speech and the aftermath, then, YES. I also believe in the concept of "Fighting Words" as a defense to assault, which USED to be the law of the land but has since been eliminated in all but a few states.

For example, if I go into southside Blacklanta and start tossing around the N-word I pretty much know what the outcome will be. But (assuming I live to tell about it) I won't go belly-aching to the cops about it, it would be my own damned fault for using "fighting words".

I agree wholeheartedly with SCOTUS in Chaplinsky v New Hamphire (1948) when they defined "Fighting Words" as "words which, by their very utterance... tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." Unfortunately, a number of bad rulings starting in the late '60s have all but negated Chaplinsky.

I think we're a lesser society for it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

Should "terrorism" be it's own crime?

Should there be different degrees of murder (1st, 2nd, manslaughter) depending on the intent of the murderer?

I see two justifications for hate crimes:

1) We care about the intent of a crime, for example we tend to treat premeditated murder different than spur of the moment murder, or deliberate murder from murder due to negligence.

2) Hate crimes, like terrorism, spreads fear in the targeted communities.  It does more harm to the broader community beyond the people physically impacted than normal crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection
7 minutes ago, Timothy said:

Should "terrorism" be it's own crime?

Should there be different degrees of murder (1st, 2nd, manslaughter) depending on the intent of the murderer?

I see two justifications for hate crimes:

1) We care about the intent of a crime, for example we tend to treat premeditated murder different than spur of the moment murder, or deliberate murder from murder due to negligence.

2) Hate crimes, like terrorism, spreads fear in the targeted communities.  It does more harm to the broader community beyond the people physically impacted than normal crimes.

A couple in California painted over a Black Lives Matter sign on the street and were charged with a hate crime. Do you think that's reasonable?

(source)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

As far as hate speech is concerned, I dislike it as much as anyone, but it should be and is protected by the first amendment.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
8 minutes ago, Natural Selection said:

A couple in California painted over a Black Lives Matter sign on the street and were charged with a hate crime. Do you think that's reasonable?

(source)

No.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection
3 minutes ago, Timothy said:

No.

There's hope for you yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto
30 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

I agree wholeheartedly with SCOTUS in Chaplinsky v New Hamphire (1948) when they defined "Fighting Words" as "words which, by their very utterance... tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." Unfortunately, a number of bad rulings starting in the late '60s have all but negated Chaplinsky.

 

If I walked through Atlanta, and just kept saying 'All Lives Matter' - are those fighting words as well? What if I openly, out loud accused the treasurer of being 'niggardly'?

There is no such things as bad words, just bad ideas. - Chris Rock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin

Crimes are, by definition, selfish and hateful.  Ever hear of a love crime?   I mean, outside of those trashy dime novels? "P

 

Hateful speech?  Slippery surface there. The problem is, there is no objective definition. Currently, the definition is "anything said by a conservative, esp a white male". It's a means of suppressing speech, nothing more. 

I'm a free speech fanatic. Shy of outright, tangible threats, the rest should be able to be uttered.  Curtailing speech based upon what the state or the "victim" feels the :"perp" thought is thoughtcrime.

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin
33 minutes ago, Timothy said:

No.

knock me over with a feather!  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buckwheat Jones

Excellent question. And no. 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buckwheat Jones
56 minutes ago, Timothy said:

Should "terrorism" be it's own crime?

Should there be different degrees of murder (1st, 2nd, manslaughter) depending on the intent of the murderer?

I see two justifications for hate crimes:

1) We care about the intent of a crime, for example we tend to treat premeditated murder different than spur of the moment murder, or deliberate murder from murder due to negligence.

2) Hate crimes, like terrorism, spreads fear in the targeted communities.  It does more harm to the broader community beyond the people physically impacted than normal crimes.

The problem with hate crimes is that they presume motivation. And when they are clear cut about motivation, like when someone is lynched or beaten for their unpopular political views, then we penalize them extra because they had “bad thoughts.”

i think the law penalizes them enough for the act and doesn’t  need any additional premium placed on the penalty for committing a crime because someone hated. When you shoot another for his money during a robbery, you’ve committed something far worse than a “hate” crime. You’ve seen the other not as a person, but as a “thing” standing between you and your selfish wants. 

Also, and as we have seen, “hate” can be molded into anything one wants it to be. 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Junto

I feel like any extra punishment for 'hate' should be factored in during sentencing and not necessarily in extra laws/ordinances.  If I were to go out and break windows of 20 black families in my town, because I hate black people and wanted them to suffer for it - then maybe I shouldn't pay restitution or simply serve 2 months in the county lock up, but serve that much more time - up to the fullest extent possible for the 'aggravated nature' of the crime.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
1 hour ago, Natural Selection said:

A couple in California painted over a Black Lives Matter sign on the street and were charged with a hate crime. Do you think that's reasonable?

(source)

This one is trickier because my understanding was that what they painted over was a county-sanctioned "mural" on county-owned property.

"Hate Crime"? No. But a charge of "vandalism" and/or "defacing government property" will leave a mark on their Permanent Record long after all this nonsense about "Hate Crime" is dispensed with. 

 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
22 minutes ago, Junto said:

I feel like any extra punishment for 'hate' should be factored in during sentencing and not necessarily in extra laws/ordinances.  If I were to go out and break windows of 20 black families in my town, because I hate black people and wanted them to suffer for it - then maybe I shouldn't pay restitution or simply serve 2 months in the county lock up, but serve that much more time - up to the fullest extent possible for the 'aggravated nature' of the crime.

Yeah, I'll buy that - an "aggravating factor" assuming the underlying event IS an actual legit crime.

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
33 minutes ago, Buckwheat Jones said:

The problem with hate crimes is that they presume motivation. And when they are clear cut about motivation, like when someone is lynched or beaten for their unpopular political views, then we penalize them extra because they had “bad thoughts.”

i think the law penalizes them enough for the act and doesn’t  need any additional premium placed on the penalty for committing a crime because someone hated. When you shoot another for his money during a robbery, you’ve committed something far worse than a “hate” crime. You’ve seen the other not as a person, but as a “thing” standing between you and your selfish wants. 

Also, and as we have seen, “hate” can be molded into anything one wants it to be. 

Killing someone as part of a robbery is effectively indifference.  You don't care about them one way or the other and your own greed is more important to you.  Killing someone motivated by hatred of who they are isn't indifference, it's assigning a negative value to their life.  I don't agree that indifference and assigning no value to someone's life is worse than assigning a negative value to their life.

Should "terrorism" be it's own crime?

6 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

This one is trickier because my understanding was that what they painted over was a county-sanctioned "mural" on county-owned property.

"Hate Crime"? No. But a charge of "vandalism" and/or "defacing government property" will leave a mark on their Permanent Record long after all this nonsense about "Hate Crime" is dispensed with. 

 

I agree that a charge of vandalism is proper in that case.

29 minutes ago, Junto said:

I feel like any extra punishment for 'hate' should be factored in during sentencing and not necessarily in extra laws/ordinances.  If I were to go out and break windows of 20 black families in my town, because I hate black people and wanted them to suffer for it - then maybe I shouldn't pay restitution or simply serve 2 months in the county lock up, but serve that much more time - up to the fullest extent possible for the 'aggravated nature' of the crime.

That's the way at least some hate crime laws work, it makes 'hate' an aggravating factor.  I agree that that is the best way to approach it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
35 minutes ago, Timothy said:

Should "terrorism" be it's own crime?

What would an alternative legal descriptor or name be for a crime whose goal is the infliction of death, pain, suffering, fear/terror onto random innocent victims who are not known to the perpetrator? Does one already exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
3 minutes ago, zurg said:

What would an alternative legal descriptor or name be for a crime whose goal is the infliction of death, pain, suffering, fear/terror onto random innocent victims who are not known to the perpetrator? Does one already exist?

Well you still have the basic charges of murder, attempted murder, assault, etc.

I don't know of any other legal descriptions that you asking about.  The reason I make the analogy is that I think it's similar to hate crimes in terms of taking motive and the extra fear/terror it generates in the broader community above and beyond similar crimes with "normal" motivations into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gravelrash
1 hour ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

This one is trickier because my understanding was that what they painted over was a county-sanctioned "mural" on county-owned property.

"Hate Crime"? No. But a charge of "vandalism" and/or "defacing government property" will leave a mark on their Permanent Record long after all this nonsense about "Hate Crime" is dispensed with. 

 

Defacing and burning government property is the Maoist tactic behind what's happening right now. Yes, add hate to the charges of vandalism and domestic terrorism.  Include willful ignorance as motive and reject youth and inexperience as a defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hieronymous

Who gets to define hate?  Who gets to change or broaden the definition?  

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
4 hours ago, Timothy said:

Well you still have the basic charges of murder, attempted murder, assault, etc.

I don't know of any other legal descriptions that you asking about.  The reason I make the analogy is that I think it's similar to hate crimes in terms of taking motive and the extra fear/terror it generates in the broader community above and beyond similar crimes with "normal" motivations into account.

Terrorism is the use of violence against a target audience in order to advance a political goal.  I have no problem with that being a separate crime because the aim of the act is not even necessarily to kill.  Wounding is OK.  Maiming is even better.  The fear and pushing for a change through that fear are the objectives.  

Murder is killing someone to kill them.  Most violent "hate crimes" that end in death fit that description.  Those that have a wider objective, i.e. terror in a target population (race) in order to make a political impact (influence voting) is terrorism.  No terrorism that I know of is committed against the target population out of love so the "hate" designation is redundant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...